On which mid-stock agencies can I upload the same images that I'm selling in other micro-stock agencies? (shutterstock, fotolia, bigstock, dreamstime, stockxpert, 123rf, featurepics, canstock)

I don't have time to build up a different portfolio, but I want to give a try to mid-stock.

I think that every agency has his target And maybe with the mid-stock license the buyer can use the image in some more ways (I'm not sure, actually I'm reading some terms of usage).

Research and look at the type of Images on the Mid-Stock sites, you may well have some on your harddrive that at the time you thought would not be accepted for microstock that may fit in on mid-stock.

If we take Alamy as an example you should not upload as RM anything that has had sales as RF and Alamy sales statistics show that 75% of the sales there are RM and also 75% of sales are editorial.

You also may have some suitable images in you micro portfolio with no sales that you could pull from all sites to try on mid-stock.

But if you do not have time to create another portfolio then you likely do not have the time to research the mid-stock agencies and what sell there, you will only get out what you are willing to put in, so it looks like nothing!

David

what's interesting here though, is that the istock photographer made the most out of your examples.

Alamy comissions generally tend to be no more than 40% after all the fees, so that photographer got $4000 for his image.

The istock photographer gets on average $1.00 per sale, so he earned $12,000 from that photo.

Alamy comissions generally tend to be no more than 40% after all the fees, so that photographer got $4000 for his image.

The istock photographer gets on average $1.00 per sale, so he earned $12,000 from that photo.

But after the alamy or photoshelter sale has been made, there is still market for 12,000 image sales left.

Btw I like the photoshelter version much more, it has better colors (the face doesn't have weird green tint and the greens look more natural) and no stupid photoshopped gradient-sky. The hand is also the other way and does not look like a lump of meat.

Please, don't dilute the midstock/macrostock market with microstock images, you have to decide the price point for each image. In the real world you can't get a $200,000 Mercedes anywhere at $200, and that's why someone wants a Mercedes.

Try Alamy, but with different images, You'll find it rewarding if your images are good enough. You'll love the bigger sales without feeling yourself as a thief.

[edit] PS: and if I decide to put my images on sale with RM license I can't sell them on different sites? right?

No. Photoshelter and Alamy (Licenced = "L") are non-exclusive.

Btw I like the photoshelter version much more, it has better colors (the face doesn't have weird green tint and the greens look more natural) and no stupid photoshopped gradient-sky. The hand is also the other way and does not look like a lump of meat.

I agree.  It is a very nice image.

I'm with azurelaroux.

Another point I would like to mention is that we can't actually control our images sold - either micro or macro stock. I am in Brazil, selling through US, CA and European sites to people anywhere in the world. What are the chances that I will ever find out if a certain image I sold was used out of the license terms? And if I do, what are the chances I may get any compensation for that? Will I get a lawyer to sue the user in Japan, Kenya or Costa Rica?

So to me the choice of macro vs micro is based on how much risk I want to take and how much loss I am accepting to have. I would be upset to see one of my "microstock-style" images misused, but I would be much more upset to see one of my dear travel images misused, so I sell the latter at macro only. It doesn't impede misuse, but it makes my "damage" less hurtful in my pocket (the buyer paid, let's say, US$100 instead of US$10).

Regards,
Adelaide

Since the PSC closure announcement I've been looking for other sites in which to sell my RM work. Workbook, Photographers Direct, and several others explicitly state that if you contribute to micros then they will not accept you as a contributor. Even PSC's contract stated that you couldn't list any images with them that were offered elsewhere for less than $50 per license, regardless of license type.

I realize that micros are all RF. That said I have seen people who offer their images on micros and also have them listed as higher priced RF or RM on sites like Alamy.

Workbook, Photographers Direct, and several others explicitly state that if you contribute to micros then they will not accept you as a contributor.

Neither of these are stock agencies.

The main traditional stock agencies Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, Alamy, Inmagine etc etc do not have policies like the one you're suggesting, and IMO if you're looking to sell RM work you will have much better success selling on these sites and not one's like Workbook or Photographers direct.

As for what others do, don't let it concern you what they do, there are some people that are very experienced in selling and understanding the stock industry and the different licensing price levels, what appears to you to be wrong may not actually be the case, now even though I personally don't mix RF and RM across different sites some do and they can within that license.

Back to your original post, it may interest you that my last RM license I sold via a macro was for $39, had the buyer bought an image license on a microstock site for the same usage terms it would have cost them in excess of $100, so you see macro (traditional) sites are not always more expensive, professional picture buyers are fully aware of the different licenses and the pricing levels available at different stock agencies so I suggest you don't get overly concerned about it yourself.

Good luck wherever you decide to sell your stuff.